Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - merging can still be done by editors if they obtain consensus on the relevant pages. No problems with self-reference, as discussed. Cheers, Wily D 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China

This is likely to be a contentious deletion, but I believe this page goes against the spirit of WP:ASR. I don't know that Wikipedia is any more notable than any other site censored by the Chinese government, making this an unnecessary fork of Internet censorship in mainland China. It doesn't help that the page has apparent OR (the "Third block" section has no sources except links to Chinese Wikipedia that lack the external link icon, violating WP:ASR) and POV (the "First block" and "Reaction" sections especially) problems. Please don't give me WP:EFFORT arguments. Morgan Wick 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The blocking of Wikipedia in China has been covered by lots of mainstream sources [1] and is an important part of the wider story of the communist dictatorship's efforts to suppress freedom of speech and information. It's notable because Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia used by millions, is the best and most egregious example of this censorship. Here's an article on the BBC about it [2]. Here's one from the New York Times [3]. There's this story from the International Herald Tribune repeating the NYT piece. [4]. This is from CBS News in the USA [5] and this from Reuters in Canada [6] Heck, it's even covered by those lovely people at Al Jazeera [7]. Certainly looks something of international significance and interest to me. If that article needs improving then it can be improved but deleting it because it has POV problems in your opinion is not a valid reason at all. These sources have been added to the entry. Nick mallory 12:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This block (i.e. of Wikipedia specifically in its English and Chinese versions) has been big international news for years already. There has to be a way to avoid ridiculous AFDs like this one in the first place. Perhaps no AFD should be allowed if it isn't discussed first on the talk page? Dovi 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this needless content fork after merging any useful info with Internet censorship in mainland China. Not really notable enough to stand on its own, and the majority of the sourcing is to blogs and wikipedia's own village pump conversations. Tarc 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion of articles in Wikipedia should be judged by notablility, not WP:ASR or the like. Otherwise even articles like Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales could not exist. Notability of this article is achieved by having multiple reliable sources. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question, then. Are there other web sites that might deserve a "Blocking of X in mainland China" article? And I haven't looked at any of those sources, but do any of them say that it is "the best and most egregious example of this censorship"? Because that sounds like a pro-Wikipedia POV to me. It just seems a bit too convenient that the one notable specific example of web-site-blocking is the one on the site that's doing the covering. Morgan Wick 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, by the same way, this AfD sounds like a pro-Chinese Government POV to me. The reason why there are no other "Blocking of X in mainland China" articles is just that no one cares to create them (yet). If they have established notability then sooner or later somebody will create them. Also AfD appears to be the wrong place for discussion of this article (notability is established), "Merge" might be a much better place.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 15:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm basing this in Wikipedia's own policies. Please assume good faith. Morgan Wick 04:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I now try to make myself clear. Your two reasons of this AfD appears to be WP:ASR and WP:POV. In WP:ASR it suggests that ASRs should be marked but not necessarily be deleted. Besides, Wikipedia can write about Wikipedia. Obvious ASRs can be cleaned up manually. WP:POV (and also WP:OR) problems can also be fixed by cleaning up (or just simply removing the problematic part). Not all parts are affected. I'm not saying that this AfD is not following a correct procedure but it appears to be a bit redundant.--:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 09:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But this is a special case. The existence of this page at least gives off the appearance of being itself POV, at least without corresponding pages on other such web sites. Morgan Wick 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with the nominator. We could make an article like this for multiple websites. Merge with Internet censorship in mainland China. SU Linguist 17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Internet censorship in mainland China.SU Linguist 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete and merge" raises GFDL concerns. Morgan Wick 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete per SU Linguist and Tarc. "Merge" is a not infrequent outcome; I think that admins have some way of merging histories as well, so the GFDL concerns should be handle-able. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge/history merge/delete would not be done in this case. --- RockMFR 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: While I agree that WP:ASR isn't a valid ground here - like it or not, Wikipedia looms largely in the news, and if you want an example as to why, Google "Chris Benoit" right now - there probably isn't enough material to sustain an independent article. Ravenswing 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable subject in and of itself, or move back to Wikipedia:Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. Either way, people can merge content to Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China at any time. --- RockMFR 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "We could make articles like this for multiple websites," yes, and if they are equally notable and have sources, so we should. DGG 00:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30 plus websites listed at List of notable websites blocked in the People's Republic of China, lots of them with multiple sources. The reason that Wikipedia has a page like that is because it doesn't make sense to make an article for "Blocking of Amnesty International in Mainland China," and "Blocking of CBS in mainland China," etc., for every blocked website. SU Linguist 02:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge into other articles. I hate to say it, but it doesn't provide any useful content, not to mention it's something that almost can't avoid NPOV. All the energy that's focused into this article would be better spent on articles about the PRC itself, or about the great firewall, or the history of wikipedia. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 08:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please either say merge or delete; they are very different actions. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China,wikipedia is influential,but the blocking of wikipedia is not specially to wikipedia.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick Mallory. FireSpike 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event. jni 06:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sufficiently well written and useful. enochlau (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chinese govt's attempt to block Wikipedia are the second most notable internet censorship activities after its dealings with Google. Fig 09:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The China vs. Google and China vs. Wikipedia issues are fulcrums of history worth documenting. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.222.24.172 (talk)
Comment We do not have an article on China's dealings with Google other than Internet censorship in mainland China. Either we create one or we delete this one. Incidentially, if we created a bunch of articles for each web site that's been blocked by China there wouldn't be much left for Internet censorship in mainland China. Morgan Wick 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But... WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. enochlau (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the generic Internet censorship article, since this is clearly a part of a bigger issue and not a particularly atypical example of it - it just happens to be something that we have first-hand experience of. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Great Firewall. More relevant there. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is clearly the website of which the censoring has been most controversial, and it got by far the most coverage in news reports etc, compared to other websites. Sala Skan 11:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is certainly notable enough to deserve it's own article instead of just a section in the censorship in China article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjs56 (talk • contribs)
Keep. This issue is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article due to its widespread coverage, and it is too large to merge into another article. Grand master ka 09:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.